4 ms·

I don't know if you're thinking about area or population, but by either metric London is bigger than any city in the US, and has a much better public transport

I don't know if you're thinking about area or population, but by either metric London is bigger than any city in the US, and has a much better public transport system.

afarrell 10y ago
It also helps significantly that London's busses are double-decker and come more often so you don't have to wait as long for a bus you can board. (I lived in Cambridge, MA for many years and this wasn't rare with the #1 bus)
- sokoloff 10y ago
  The most aggravating thing that I saw about the #1 was it was on a nominally ~10 minute schedule at peak times. Pretty regularly, I'd wait 20+ minutes only to see three #1 buses, nose-to-tail, arriving.
argonaut 10y ago
The New York and Los Angeles metropolitan areas are larger in area than the London metropolitan area The NY metro area is much more populous than London, and the LA metro area is very slightly less populous.
- foldr 10y ago
  >The NY metro area is much more populous than London, and the LA metro area is very slightly le Well, 14 million vs 20 million is not such a big difference. And the definition of metropolitan areas is somewhat arbitrary in any case.
  - rys 10y ago
    There are numerous entire countries that have populations smaller than that 42% difference.
    - foldr 10y ago
      Well, sure, but it's less than a 2x difference relatively speaking, and it doesn't really have big implications for public transport.
- lqdc13 10y ago
  NYC transportation sucks even within areas where the population is very dense. It takes 2 hours to get from Bronx to Coney Island on subway. Plus there are almost daily service disruptions of all kinds. San Francisco's Bart is hated by almost everyone but it is much faster[1]. In fact, I have never taken a slower subway than NYC subway. [1] https://flic.kr/p/7LhwPz https://flic.kr/p/7LhwPz
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    > It takes 2 hours to get from Bronx to Coney Island on subway That's a bizarre example. Of course it takes a long time to go from one corner of the city to the other. No reasonable person would be making that commute regularly.
    - lqdc13 10y ago
      The point is that the subway is slow and unreliable unless you are commuting within Manhattan for 4 stops. Lots of people work in Manhattan and commute from Brooklyn. It's a 1.5 hr train ride to Columbus Circle + 0-60 minute random slowdown where you may have to take the train in the opposite direction for a bunch of stops. Sometimes they actually tell you to get off the train, take a shuttle bus and get back on the train. Other times the train stops 8 subway stops from where you have to be with an inaudible message from the conductor. As a result, you are stuck the middle of nowhere at 8 PM on a Saturday. Only option is to take a local bus (that tends to be much more reliable) or Uber. This kind of treatment is unheard of in any European country including Russia. It could have been a 45 + 0-5 variation minute ride if trains ran as fast and reliably as they do in almost every other city.
gurgeh 10y ago
It's probably a function of both population and area: higher population density makes mass transit more efficient. Europe is much more densely populated than the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territor...
rtpg 10y ago
the right word is "denser". American cities are built for cars, so even if you take a bus somewhere you're now walking 15 minutes between buildings. This can be solved on a small scale (build "pockets" of livability), but mass transit will have a harder time surviving without other urbanization changes
- kobeya 10y ago
  > build "pockets" of livability That was a very loaded word to use. The problem is many people consider dense urban neighborhoods to be unlivable..
  - ericd 10y ago
    And many prefer it to living in the sprawl.
kobeya 10y ago
san Jose alone is about 1/3 of the size of the entire London metropolitan area, and that's just one part (albeit a big one) of the south bay area.
vacri 10y ago
The conurbation that New York is part of is much bigger than London. The London metropolitan area is about 8.5k square kilometers. The New York metropolitan area is about 35k.
samfisher83 10y ago
Houston and Jacksonville are bigger in area and I am sure some other American cities are as well.
deaddodo 10y ago
> but by either metric London is bigger than any city in the US That's not even NEAR true. Los Angeles metro is 12,562 sq km, whilst "Greater London" is 1,569 sq km. The LA Metro has 12.8m residents, while GL has 8.6m. So, by either metric, they're much smaller.

I don't know if you're thinking about area or population, but by either metric London is bigger than any city in the US, and has a much better public transport system.

afarrell 10y ago

It also helps significantly that London's busses are double-decker and come more often so you don't have to wait as long for a bus you can board. (I lived in Cambridge, MA for many years and this wasn't rare with the #1 bus)

sokoloff 10y ago
The most aggravating thing that I saw about the #1 was it was on a nominally ~10 minute schedule at peak times. Pretty regularly, I'd wait 20+ minutes only to see three #1 buses, nose-to-tail, arriving.

argonaut 10y ago

The New York and Los Angeles metropolitan areas are larger in area than the London metropolitan area The NY metro area is much more populous than London, and the LA metro area is very slightly less populous.

foldr 10y ago
>The NY metro area is much more populous than London, and the LA metro area is very slightly le Well, 14 million vs 20 million is not such a big difference. And the definition of metropolitan areas is somewhat arbitrary in any case.
- rys 10y ago
  There are numerous entire countries that have populations smaller than that 42% difference.
  - foldr 10y ago
    Well, sure, but it's less than a 2x difference relatively speaking, and it doesn't really have big implications for public transport.
lqdc13 10y ago
NYC transportation sucks even within areas where the population is very dense. It takes 2 hours to get from Bronx to Coney Island on subway. Plus there are almost daily service disruptions of all kinds. San Francisco's Bart is hated by almost everyone but it is much faster[1]. In fact, I have never taken a slower subway than NYC subway. [1] https://flic.kr/p/7LhwPz https://flic.kr/p/7LhwPz
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  > It takes 2 hours to get from Bronx to Coney Island on subway That's a bizarre example. Of course it takes a long time to go from one corner of the city to the other. No reasonable person would be making that commute regularly.
  - lqdc13 10y ago
    The point is that the subway is slow and unreliable unless you are commuting within Manhattan for 4 stops. Lots of people work in Manhattan and commute from Brooklyn. It's a 1.5 hr train ride to Columbus Circle + 0-60 minute random slowdown where you may have to take the train in the opposite direction for a bunch of stops. Sometimes they actually tell you to get off the train, take a shuttle bus and get back on the train. Other times the train stops 8 subway stops from where you have to be with an inaudible message from the conductor. As a result, you are stuck the middle of nowhere at 8 PM on a Saturday. Only option is to take a local bus (that tends to be much more reliable) or Uber. This kind of treatment is unheard of in any European country including Russia. It could have been a 45 + 0-5 variation minute ride if trains ran as fast and reliably as they do in almost every other city.

gurgeh 10y ago

It's probably a function of both population and area: higher population density makes mass transit more efficient. Europe is much more densely populated than the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territor...

rtpg 10y ago

the right word is "denser". American cities are built for cars, so even if you take a bus somewhere you're now walking 15 minutes between buildings. This can be solved on a small scale (build "pockets" of livability), but mass transit will have a harder time surviving without other urbanization changes

kobeya 10y ago
> build "pockets" of livability That was a very loaded word to use. The problem is many people consider dense urban neighborhoods to be unlivable..
- ericd 10y ago
  And many prefer it to living in the sprawl.

kobeya 10y ago

san Jose alone is about 1/3 of the size of the entire London metropolitan area, and that's just one part (albeit a big one) of the south bay area.

vacri 10y ago

The conurbation that New York is part of is much bigger than London. The London metropolitan area is about 8.5k square kilometers. The New York metropolitan area is about 35k.

samfisher83 10y ago

Houston and Jacksonville are bigger in area and I am sure some other American cities are as well.

deaddodo 10y ago

> but by either metric London is bigger than any city in the US That's not even NEAR true. Los Angeles metro is 12,562 sq km, whilst "Greater London" is 1,569 sq km. The LA Metro has 12.8m residents, while GL has 8.6m. So, by either metric, they're much smaller.